back to article Back to the Future's DeLorean is coming back to the future

DeLorean Motors has announced that it hopes to resume construction of the DMC-12 sports car made famous by 1985 flick Back to the Future. In the film and its two sequels, the car houses a time machine that operated when the stainless-steel-mobile hits 88 miles per hour. The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked …

  1. Ralph B

    For a US$100,000 ... ?

    For that price it had better be the flying version!

    1. Martin Summers Silver badge

      Re: For a US$100,000 ... ?

      I'd have thought the time travel feature would be the optional extra of choice!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: For a US$100,000 ... ?

      It can time travel. Just not beyond 2015.

  2. chivo243 Silver badge

    Should have priced it

    at $121,000 or 1.21 giga dollars

    1. Dabooka Silver badge

      Re: Should have priced it

      Isn't a giga 10x9? So wouldn't it be $1,210,000,000?

      [DISCLAIMER]

      Maths is not my strong point!

      1. chivo243 Silver badge

        Re: Should have priced it

        mine neither, obviously, that's why I find comedy much easier...

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Should have priced it

        "Isn't a giga 10x9?"

        Probably. But in BTTF Doc Brown uses "Jiga-" not "Giga-" and that is still currently an undefined prefix in the SI scale :-)

        1. jake Silver badge

          @John Brown (no body): (was: Re: Should have priced it)

          I'm pretty certain that "giga" has the same root as "gigantic" ... Methinks "Doc Brown" actually had it right ;-)

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: @John Brown (no body): (was: Should have priced it)

            The origin seems to be the Greek Gígās which as far as I tell from a cursory Google is pronounced with a hard G as in Google, not a soft G as in Giant.

            Happy to be corrected by any Greek speakers here though :-)

            Damn! You made me do research! I might get my commentard badge pulled for that!

            1. x 7

              Re: @John Brown (no body): (was: Should have priced it)

              "Greek Gígās"

              does that rhyme with "big ass"?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Should have priced it

        "Isn't a giga 10x9? So wouldn't it be $1,210,000,000?"

        I'll just trade in my Facebook shares for one then.

    2. Jarndyce

      Re: Should have priced it

      Don't we have a Register standard for money, yet?! - With base units like the cosst of pair of "Bulgarian airbag", etc?

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Should have priced it

        "Suitcase full of cash" is an obvious contender.

        1. NotBob

          Re: Should have priced it

          Have to pull a Doc move and rip off the Libyans (or select a modern equivalent) to afford it.

          1. chivo243 Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Should have priced it

            @NotBob

            I'd upvote you again if I could, ripping off the Libyans - Classic!

  3. jake Silver badge

    A couple points ...

    "supposedly possessed of the amazing acceleration required"

    Uh ... No. It just needed to get up to "88". Which it could. Barely.

    Side note ... One of the most ill-handling supposed "sports cars" I've ever driven. Worse than the Porsche 911s of the era. Hanging a huge ass out behind beautiful bodywork is not consistent with day-to-day driving in the real-world.

    1. PassiveSmoking

      Re: A couple points ...

      Both the gutless performance and wallowy handling have their roots in Californian emissions and safety laws at the time, respectively. American petrol is lower octane than its European equivalent so the engine which wasn't that great to start with was already down on power in America, and then California insisted that a load of emissions control equipment (catalytic converter etc) were added as well (such things weren't as widely used at the time as they are today).

      On top of that, California road safety laws required a front bumper at a very specific height from the road, and the Delorean was too low slung to meet that requirement. In the end the company got around that problem by taking the path of least resistance and simply raising the suspension to the bumper would be at the required height, but this ruined its handling characteristics in the process.

      The result was a "sports" car that could barely even get to 88 mph and rolled like a marble.

      1. jason 7

        Re: A couple points ...

        Ohh don't mention octane ratings to Americans. They are soon to point out that (as per usual, yawn) their octane ratings are just different to the rest of the world and are in fact superior.

        That's just the way it goes. Sorry.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A couple points ...

          Octane doesn't do what you think it does. Octane ratings tend to be like trouser snake measuring contests. People see that some exotic sports car needs insanely high octane and conclude that if they put higher octane go juice in their grocery getter it somehow gains performance.

          One exception: on a modern high-performance engine, performance will be reduced by the engine computer to compensate for use of fuel with lower than recommended octane levels.

          Octane just makes it harder for the fuel to go "boom" before it's supposed to. Put low octane fuel in a high-compression ratio engine and it starts to turn into a diesel. The compression starts igniting the fuel-air mixture before the spark does, which is a problem if the piston is still on its way up.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A couple points ...

            "Octane doesn't do what you think it does"

            Increased octane simply cause the fuel/air mixture to yield a faster and more controlled burn, which is necessary in high performance engines to achieve tighter intake/compression/combustion/exhaust cycles - therefore maximising power per combustion and also improving the ability of the engine to achieve more complete combustions in shorter time - therefore power through into higher rpms.

            A low performance engine won't notice high octane fuel, in fact may even perform worse. A high performance engine conversely will be held back by low octane fuel.

            I used to notice a dramatic difference between 'normal' 97 octane petrol and Shell 'super unleaded' (98 octane) in my 750cc motorcycle, which was a fairly high performance spec engine. Especially on a cold day when the higher octane fuel combine with nice cold dense air yielded heaps of extra power.

            I know a BP garage on the A406 (north circular road) in North London, which has a single pump which dispenses 102 octane unleaded. I never got to try it out in the bike, as it was always sold out when I visited... shame!

            1. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: A couple points ...

              AC: "Increased octane simply cause the fuel/air mixture to yield a >>faster<< and more controlled burn."

              You spelled 'slower' incorrectly.

              And so on...

            2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

              Re: A couple points ...

              A high performance engine conversely will be held back by low octane fuel.

              That's only true, and then only a little bit, if the octane1 is low enough that the engine suffers from compression ignition. Once you pass that point, the octane rating makes no difference.

              And it doesn't matter whether the engine is "high performance". What does matter is whether it's "high compression", because the greater the compression ratio, the more susceptible the vapor is to compression ignition.

              In the olden days, when compression ignition happened, you'd get "knock" - the vapor igniting prematurely at the wrong point in the cycle. Obviously that was bad for engine output, among other things.

              For many years now, cars have come with knock sensors, and if the engine sees compression ignition it'll retard the timing to compensate. This makes the engine less efficient, but not a lot less powerful.

              Higher-octane-rated mixes are less likely to ignite from compression (just as octane ignites at a higher pressure than hexane does). Thus cars with high-compression engines specify higher-octane-rated fuel. Such engines have higher output per unit displacement because they use a higher compression ratio, not because of the fuel they use.

              1Really should be "nominal octane". Gasoline / petrol is nominally a mixture of hexane and octane, for octane-reporting purposes; but really it's a hydrocarbon cocktail of various things the refinery cracked out of longer petroleum chains and decided to mix together, along with detergents and oxidizers (where mandated) and whatever other crap they decide to throw in. No one makes gasoline out of mostly octane.

        2. Fungus Bob Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: A couple points ...

          "Ohh don't mention octane ratings to Americans. They are soon to point out that (as per usual, yawn) their octane ratings are just different to the rest of the world and are in fact superior."

          It's true! Our octanes are measured in gallons while your are measured in liters and everyone knows that gallons are bigger.

          1. x 7

            Re: A couple points ...

            no - its just that Americans octanes are really disguised hexanes

            they flash more quickly but have far less performance power

          2. dorsetknob
            Pint

            Re: A couple points ...

            ""It's true! Our octanes are measured in gallons while your are measured in liters and everyone knows that gallons are bigger.""

            Not the US Gallon my boyo that's significantly smaller than the ""IMPERIAL GALLON""

          3. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: A couple points ...

            Our gallons are bigger than your gallons!

            ( 6 us gallons = 5 uk gallons, roughly ).

      2. Michael Strorm

        Re: A couple points ...

        I guess those American regulations explain the pig-fugly bumpers plastered on to European designs like the American MG B or- even worse- their version of the Fiat Strada/Ritmo.

    2. JDX Gold badge

      Uh ... No. It just needed to get up to "88". Which it could. Barely.

      Well as the article points out, acceleration is a factor when you need a road long enough to GET to 88. Although in the USA, long straight roads are hardly a rarity. In the UK, it would be much more of an issue.

    3. Mage Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: A couple points ...

      Even at the time critics said:

      Too low power an engine

      bad handling

      Stainless Steel skin shakes off the fibre glass body.

      Questions about safety of gull wing doors (other gull wings since can open if car on roof)

      He was a con man and the car was just styled to look distinctive, it's rubbish really.

    4. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: A couple points ...

      Well, it was made for the American market. If you try a lot of the USA sports cars from those days they do not handle any better (though most have significantly more power on tap).

      What did you expect? A Renault 5 GT Turbo? A Peugeout 205 GTI? Both date from about the same time.

      Oh, I forgot, something like that would have never made it into the USA market by the pure nature of it being too small. And driveable too.

      The original DeLorean best likeness are those fake Ferraris which people make out of a Fiat Coupe. Put a fake Ferrari body on top + horse badge and a HUGE fart pipe. Under-powered, handles like a coffin and has the safety level of a coffin (I would really not like to try to get out of those gull-wing doors after a roll over).

      1. Pedigree-Pete

        Re: A couple points ...

        Made for the American market...in Northern Ireland. Wanders off wondering why (British Govt subsidies perchance?)

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: A couple points ...

          And IIRC Lotus got involved somehow too.

          1. PassiveSmoking

            Re: A couple points ...

            When the original design began to fall apart they turned to Chapman to try and fix things. The chassis used for this car is to all intents and purposes the one from the Esprit. Except on stilts and wobbling all over the place like a clown car.

          2. x 7

            Re: A couple points ...

            "And IIRC Lotus got involved somehow too"

            from memory Lotus designed the plastic body, but not the mechanicals or roadgear

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A couple points ...

          Wanders off wondering why (British Govt subsidies perchance?)

          $120m in 1978. Say £74m in 1978 prices, so about £330m at 2015 values. Which means the British taxpayer paid a subsidy in today's money of £36k per car completed.

          Put another way, 2,500 people were employed for two years, so that's £132k per head in current values, and £66k per employee per year, for jobs that (again in current money) would be about £21k average salary.

          Good to see that HM Government has always been consistent in the value for money it offers taxpayers.

          1. Bob Wheeler

            Re: A couple points ...

            @Ledswinger

            All valid points, however I suspect that it was hoped that DeLorean was going to last more than the two years. If it had surrived 5 or 10 years, the subsidies would have looked at lot cheaper then having those 2,500 folks out of work.

          2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

            Re: A couple points ...

            The government wouldn't have known in advance that the car was a lemon or that the owner would have his collar felt.

            If it had taken off it would have been worth it.

        3. x 7

          Re: A couple points ...

          "British Govt subsidies perchance?"

          Yes, a massive fraud on the British Goverment, which ran alongside the other Northern Ireland high-tech scam, the LearFan

          Both involved novel plastic / composite designs which didn't work

          1. Dr Scrum Master

            Re: A couple points ...

            "British Govt subsidies perchance?"

            Yes, a massive fraud on the British Goverment, which ran alongside the other Northern Ireland high-tech scam, the LearFan

            A fraud that got Arthur Anderson banned from British government work until Tony Blair entered 10 Downing Street...

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1791168.stm

        4. CmdrX3

          Re: A couple points ...

          That's exactly why. They got huge subsidies for setting up production although I worked in a place along with two guys who left Ford to work there and they said it was a great company to work for. Mind you it doesn't stop the cars being a bit naff but at least the people building them were happy.

    5. Ralph B

      Re: A couple points ...

      > Side note ... One of the most ill-handling supposed "sports cars" I've ever driven.

      I was a snotty-nosed teenage car nerd at the British Motor Show when the DeLorean was launched and I remember sidling through the crowd to ask the large American salesman why they had decided to put the engine way in the back where it was terrible for driving dynamics. His reply has stayed with me:

      "It's because of the design of the motor car."

      As unanswerable now as it ever was. And generally re-applicable to any poor product design.

      Q. "Why have you made such a sub-optimal use of technology in your product?"

      A. "It's because of the design of the product."

      Thank you. Of course that's the reason. Silly me for asking.

    6. hi_robb
      Paris Hilton

      Re: A couple points ...

      You mentioned huge ass behind a beautiful body and didn't use the Paris icon?

      What were you thinking man!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A couple points ...

        You mentioned huge ass behind a beautiful body and didn't use the Paris icon?

        I think the "beautiful body" bit was missing..

      2. Fungus Bob Silver badge

        Re: A couple points ...

        "You mentioned huge ass behind a beautiful body and didn't use the Paris icon? What were you thinking man!"

        He was thinking (correctly) that Paris has a skinny little butt.

    7. TitterYeNot
      Coat

      Re: A couple points ...

      "Hanging a huge ass out behind beautiful bodywork is not consistent with day-to-day driving in the real-world."

      Hang on, I thought we were talking about the DMC-12, not the DeLorean Kardashian...

      Joking aside, the question we're all asking, of course, is "Does it come with a lightning conductor?"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A couple points ...

        Lightning conductor? That's so 1950s. Everyone is asking two questions: 1) Does it need roads? 2) Does it come with a Mr. Fusion?

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hanging a huge ass out behind...

      It's the Kim Kardashian of sports cars.

    9. mosw

      Re: A couple points ...

      'It just needed to get up to "88". Which it could. Barely.'

      Acceleration as tested: 0- 88 mph in 26 years.

    10. Vic

      Re: A couple points ...

      One of the most ill-handling supposed "sports cars" I've ever driven.

      And yet it's from the same design studio as the Lotus Esprit - which is one of the best-handling[1] sports cars I've ever driven...

      Vic.

      [1] If not exactly the fastest...

      1. x 7

        Re: A couple points ...

        "it's from the same design studio as the Lotus Esprit"

        perhaps Colin Chapman didn't want any extra competition?

  4. Shane McCarrick

    Price is nuts

    100k?

    Do people actually remember the original DeLoreans?

    They were plagued with engineering issues- and whatever about their 'coolness' their cost-of-ownership was astronomical. The 'hip' people who had one- lamented them- and did their utmost to offload them in as expeditious a manner a possible. It drove like it had treacle poured into the steering column- and felt like you were driving one of those nutty Renaults. In short- it was a piece of crap to be avoided if at all possible.

    Most people who have 100k to spend on a car- are probably looking at a nice Volvo or even a top end Audi or something- not a freaking DeLorean.......

    As the saying goes- fools and their money............

    1. sam 38

      Re: Price is nuts

      "Most people who have 100k to spend on a car- are probably looking at a nice Volvo"

      "Hmm, I've got £70k to spare, how about a nice ... ... ... Volvo."

      This is why we can't have nice things.

      1. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

        Re: Price is nuts

        What is a nice Volvo? I must have missed it.

        1. Bob Wheeler

          Re: Price is nuts

          That would be the 850, with the 2.5L 5 pot, 20 value. I'm still driving mine after 20 years.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Price is nuts

            Nah - 850R with the 240 bhp :-)

        2. Vic

          Re: Price is nuts

          What is a nice Volvo? I must have missed it.

          P1800 was quite pretty.

          I could never own one though - I ride bikes...

          Vic.

          1. x 7

            Re: Price is nuts

            "P1800 was quite pretty."

            and actually built by............Jensen. Not Volvo! Or at least the first 6000 or so were

    2. Dabooka Silver badge

      Re: Price is nuts

      A run of 300, at $100,000 a pop (probably rise to $150,000) it will be collected by those who already have top end Audis and 'nice Volvos'. It's not ever going to be a contender against the established makers is it?

      Anyway they'll just be touting for funding, proabably have more chance raising it on Kickstarter

  5. m0rt Silver badge

    "Most people who have 100k to spend on a car- are probably looking at a nice Volvo "

    100k? On a *nice* volvo? Man bet they never saw that coming in 1985.

    1. Yugguy

      Is there even a Volvo that costs 100k?

      As for nice, tbh I'd not turn down one of these:

      http://www.polestar.com/bg/products/engineered/

      The new V60/S60 looks quite good IMO. And 0-62 in 5s would do.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        tbh I'd not turn down one of these

        Yes, if you like performance in a comfortable, reliable car, the Volvo models with Polestar packages aren't bad. There's also the S60 T6, one of those turbo- and supercharged models. Kind of silly, in my opinion (really just more repairs down the road), but cute.

        I lost my taste for fast cars years ago - a stint towing cars for the police pretty much did it in - and today's cars are generally absurdly overpowered anyway. So the Volvos are more than fast enough for me.

        My wife has a 2008 C30, and I drive a 2015 XC70, and I think they're nice. Not the fastest, not the most luxurious, not the most efficient, not the cheapest - but a decent compromise on all of those points. And relatively safe. And the infotainment / feature controls in the XC70 are mostly physical buttons and knobs, not some idiotic touchscreen.

        1. Yugguy

          There was a 4.4 V8 version of the previous gen S60. I wouldn't mind a go in that. Proper old school no replacement for displacement job.

  6. AMBxx Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    New company finance

    Is that coming from a big drug deal too?

    Paris because she can finance herself legally ;)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: New company finance

      Sir, I object to your comments about the former DeLorean's financing, even though Mr DeLorean was filmed and recorded accepting the transportation of drugs he was entrapped under the nefarious circumstances of someone offering him large sums of money to do so.

      I draw your attention to his last business venture accepting deposits on vapourware watches to finance the DMC-2, now that's a project with real kickstarter potential.

      1. Frumious Bandersnatch Silver badge

        Re: New company finance

        Well, the Guardian's obit for the man doesn't paint too nice a picture, calling him a "world-class conman", among other details. Once someone dies, libel or defamation laws don't generally apply, it seems (though some places might have time-limited exceptions for an obituary, and don't try saying nasty things about Ataturk), so you can say whatever you like about them. Still, on the balance of probabilities, I doubt that the Graun made up this stuff out of whole cloth.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: New company finance

          Bearing in mind he "wriggled out of an extradition request to the US" according to the Guardian obituary, couldn't they- or anyone else without a legal US presence- say pretty much what they liked about him when he was alive anyway, since he'd have had to come to the UK to sue them (and then get put on trial for fraud)? :-)

          I guess there may have been a point of weakness if they had any US operations or outlets back then he could have taken action against.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Did the world forget?

    DeLorean made Lotus and Maserati look reliable.

    Oh and small volume manufacturing has been available in the EEC/ UK for over 20 years under the EC SSTA guidelines

    http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca//vehicletype/ec-small-series-ecssta.asp

    So DeLoreans could have been imported at any time, not quite sure why they feel the need to highlight a change in legislation to manufacture a car originally built in Belfast, and £100k is probably to cover the union rep's salary and pension fund for building in the USA. Obviously DeLorean was the inspiration behind the iPhone, it's brushed metal and glass and also would be cheaper to outsource to Foxconn.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Different engines under the hood...

    With the low production and donor engine, shouldn't that qualify it as a (very expensive) rolling stock kit car?

    This Delorean concept seems expensive and gimmicky and cashing in on the BTTF nostalgia.

    Much better to go for a Cobra or GT40 kit instead or a car with a 5.7L / 6.1L Hemi engine. Much more fun - and in most cases cheaper.

    1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      cashing in on the BTTF nostalgia.

      well they've just missed the Ideal date to cash in on BTTF. If only they had a time machine...

    2. Neil Lewis

      Re: Different engines under the hood...

      Many (most?) will be unaware that the majority of the stainless steel sheet leftover when the Delorean factory closed was actually used for kit car production - the Robin Hood 7, I believe. A cosmetic copy of the Lotus 7, but with a monocoque body shell made entirely from stainless steel, with GRP wings and nose cone and a Ford OHC Pinto engine. At one time, they were quite popular.

      1. Toltec

        Re: Different engines under the hood...

        @ Neil Lewis

        Never knew the connection to RH, getting hold of a load of cheap SS explains why it was used in a budget kit.

      2. x 7

        Re: Different engines under the hood...

        "a monocoque body shell made entirely from stainless steel"

        so surely thats a copy of the Lotus 6, not the 7?

    3. The First Dave
      Facepalm

      Re: Different engines under the hood...

      How can you say "much better to go for..." when we don't yet know what the new power-plant is going to be?

    4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Different engines under the hood...

      Much better to go for a Cobra or GT40 kit instead or a car with a 5.7L / 6.1L Hemi engine

      I agree. While I admit to admiring the looks of the Delorean as a callow youth, these days if I were going to get a replica of a pretty but incompetent sports car, it'd be a Jensen Interceptor. Or an Alfa Romeo Spider. Or a Ferrari 365 "Daytona".

      And if I were nostalgically inclined to fulfill one of my youthful car crushes, it'd probably be for something more prosaic. An Audi 80 Quattro from the early 1980s, maybe. Perhaps a Porsche 944 (the "Porsche for everyone"), just to tweak the 911 fans.

      1. x 7

        Re: Different engines under the hood...

        "pretty but incompetent sports car, "

        what makes you say the Jensen Intercepter was incompetent?

        I'm not criticising you, just genuinely interested in what you thought was wrong.

        Any comments on the 4x4 version with the Ferguson transmission? I always thought that would be an interesting beast to drive

  9. Shady

    NOT cool

    If you own a lovingly maintained original model, that's kinda cool. If you stump up six figures for the replica, you're just a douche

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Trollface

      You'll have to admit, that market is not a small one.

  10. Martin Summers Silver badge

    Well, there's currently a "news about your lottery ticket" email sat in my inbox (I never check the account). So if that works out well I know what I will be buying!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Dead Vulture

      "So if that works out well I know what I will be buying!"

      The Register?

      ;)

      1. Martin Summers Silver badge

        Ha, not with my own money. A crowd funded commentard buyout on the other hand...

    2. Martin Summers Silver badge

      Well it was only 6 quid. So no DeLorean for me.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not a good idea

    The only thing the DMC really had going for it was the idea of a stainless body. But the added weight of it, along with the notoriously heavy addedition of a gullwing assembly, an anemic Renault engine and 80's UK style build quality made it a real dog.

    It was a really bad idea to begin with, and barring some curiosum value (look what those crazy 80's people thought up to go with their shoulder pads) it still is.

    UNLESS they're going to make it with an ultra light carbotanium body and a 500 horse 0 emissions engine with a range of 300 miles, in which case they might find some customers who want it as a runabout next to their Pagani, they are going to loose money. But I imagine this would add a 0 to the price tag and I don't mean in front.

    1. Mage Silver badge

      Re: Not a good idea

      It was fibre glass with a glued on stainless steel skin!

      Came off easily, dented easily ... Not particularly heavy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not a good idea

        Oh, so that's why they couldn't just land on Biff's 1946 Ford

    2. EnviableOne Bronze badge
      Alert

      Re: Not a good idea

      "UNLESS they're going to make it with an ultra light carbotanium body and a 500 horse 0 emissions engine with a range of 300 miles,"

      hey that sounds familliar, Telsa roadster anyone?

  12. Steve Todd

    If I had a spare $100k

    I certainly wouldn't be spending it on a car with as poor acceleration and handling as the DeLorien. A Tesla Model S perhaps. Something that can hit 88MPH effortlessly and in short order certainly.

    1. x 7

      Re: If I had a spare $100k

      if you really wanted a car with a stainless steel body, for that kind of money, I believe there's a company still hand-building Jensen Interceptors from spares

      Now thats a 1970's car I really fancied. Totally impractical, but fun

      1. Vic

        Re: If I had a spare $100k

        Jensen Interceptors

        Awesome car. Really enjoyed driving it. Really hated working on it :-)

        Vic.

  13. Boothy
    Mushroom

    Mr Fusion

    If it came with Mr Fusion, it'd be worth the 100k.

    Icon, because...

  14. Andy 73

    Undeservingly poor reputation

    It's a pity the DeLorean has such a poor reputation with armchair experts.

    For a first product from an entirely new car company, it had about the number of problems you'd expect. Funnily enough Tesla has also had it's fair share of issues with new cars. Luckily for them they're significantly better financed and have been able to develop their product to the point where they're gaining serious respect.

    DeLorean was very unlucky (and you could argue how much of that bad luck was self-induced), but the core of the car had potential - a big input from Lotus and a desire to try out new techniques and technologies. If it had been developed further, it could have been quite interesting.

    This relaunch could resolve a lot of the early issues (though let's face it, the company is running on a budget that would barely develop a wheel nut), so it could be quite a fun car to own. I wish 'em luck. Without mavericks willing to try something different, we'd all be driving Volvos.. *shudder*

    1. small and stupid

      Deservingly poor reputation

      Its a poor car tarted up by some impractical gimmicks.

    2. x 7

      Re: Undeservingly poor reputation

      "For a first product from an conman/confidence trickster, it had about the number of problems you'd expect"

      corrected it for you

      1. dorsetknob
        Joke

        Re: Undeservingly poor reputation

        Relatively unknown and hidden fact Del boy loran actualy sold 342 million cars but the flux capaciter had a software fault

        on returning from the future it materialised not at the correct time but still 5 seconds in the future

        they were bankrupted paying off people to hide this fact

        Its True read it on Wilkipedofilia

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    For the approximate cost of $100k I'd at least expect the car to have a carbon fibre shell !

    <feed the Trolls> Does it come with optional extras?

    1. Wupspups

      A boot load of coke is available as an upgrade.

  16. Philippe

    .. because it looked amazingly cool in 1985..

    The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked amazingly cool in 1985

    No. It looked amazingly cool in 1985 and it still does today and will probably still do 30 years from now.

    It was chosen because it looked like nothing else back then.

    1. Down not across Silver badge

      Re: .. because it looked amazingly cool in 1985..

      The DeLorean was chosen for the role because it looked amazingly cool in 1985

      No. It looked amazingly cool in 1985 and it still does today and will probably still do 30 years from now.

      It was chosen because it looked like nothing else back then.

      I beg to differ. Cool as it looked, it was late to the party by about 10 years. And lets face it Bricklin SV-1 at least had better powertrain (originally AMC 360 V8, later Ford 351). And it had power gull-wing doors.

      And yes it suffered from multitide of problems, made 50 worst cars ever built list. Company went into receivership after building less than 3000 cars in 3 years.

  17. John 104

    I had the displeasure of riding in one of these a few years back. It was the most terrifying ride I have ever been in. Aside from the noise, the car continuously hunted in its lane, shook uncontrollably at any chance, and generally felt unsafe. Hauling it down to a stop in traffic, I thought for sure we would rear-end car after car. It barely managed the task - from 45 MPH. A truly worthless car. And not that appealing to look at either.

    I would hope that they come out with an updated exterior and interrior for the re-launch. And better brakes. And more powerful engine, and better chassis, and. Oh screw it, just design a new car please.

    For my money, if I was going for short run coolness from the era, I'd go with a Pantera. Far better looking, real engine, and still has that 80s style.

    1. jake Silver badge

      @John 104

      "I'd go with a Pantera."

      The real DeTomaso Pantera was over in 1972 ... I fixed the b0rken 351C in my '71, just to make her both legal & drivable. Ain't the best handling car in the world, but she is pretty. And actually comfy, for distances of under two hundred miles.

    2. Vic

      if I was going for short run coolness from the era, I'd go with a Pantera

      One of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen[1]. And one to make Lotus look reliable.

      Elvis Presley had one. It borke down once too often - so he pulled out a gun and shot it. A lot.

      Vic.

      [1] I seriously considered buying one once. It would have been a major mistake...

  18. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Maximum speed = 87 mph!!

    Though maybe the 1%ers who can afford a $100K car feel that they bought the right to change the past to their benefit.

  19. AceRimmer1980
    Boffin

    How many MPG* does it get

    *Months (of time travel) Per Gram (of plutonium)

  20. CmdrX3

    Is the Flux Capacitor an optional extra or does it come as standard.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019